What UV Filters to Get

Hey guys.

I was just checking B&H and saw that it's a pain in the neck to buy the B+W 415 MC filters...

I was wondering if 6-10 week waiting and 150$ paying is fair for that type of order? Isn't just best to buy the 010 UV Haze filters? Would they damage sharpness on for example 17-40, 70-200 f/4 or 50 1.8 II?

Regards,
Aero145

I haven't had good luck using any UV filter on my lenses (even the real expensive ones), they always seem to affect image quality in some way. Instead of these filters I now use the lens hood all the time, just my input here.

Personally, I think if you are getting it to protect the lens, I think any decent UV filter will do.
But to get a cheap vs expensive vs no UV filter for protection is an area of trivial debate among some shooters.

aero145 wrote in post #2014023
Hey guys.

I was just checking B&H and saw that it's a pain in the neck to buy the B+W 415 MC filters...

I was wondering if 6-10 week waiting and 150$ paying is fair for that type of order? Isn't just best to buy the 010 UV Haze filters? Would they damage sharpness on for example 17-40, 70-200 f/4 or 50 1.8 II?

Regards,
Aero145

i use the B+W MRC UV filters to protect all my lenses, work fine. i believe they are the 010 like you mentioned. but make sure to get the MRC multicoated version.

On those rare occasions when I would feel the need to use a protection filter I'm not so sure there would be a hell of a lot of difference anyway.

There are a couple of schools of thought on UV filters.

If you insist on using a filter all the time, you should have the best quality multicoated filter you can afford. That way you will avoid most, but not all, of the flare and other degradation caused by adding a filter to a lens.

On the other hand, the only time I would even think of using a UV filter for "protection" is when shooting in a sandstorm, or at the beach with salty water spraying on my camera. Basically, I just don't take my good cameras into situations like that. If I chose to do so, I would probably get a decent but bargain priced filter because I would expect it to be virtually destroyed (for good quality photography, that is) by the impacting sand, etc.

I strongly suggest using a properly designed rigid lens hood any time a lens is out of the case and especially when it's on the camera.

Heliopan, B+W and Hoya Pro - more or less in that order from best down. They're correspondingly as expensive - but they're top notch quality and heavily multi-coated.

I have a Hoya Pro for my 17-40.I had not the time to test it with/without the filter.It does not make me any problems with focus precision.You can also use the original Canon lens cap(with B&W you cannot).

Thanks for the replies guys.

So are you telling me that I should only use the filters when I don't have the hood on (which is not often)?

So if I use hoods 90% of the time, I should use 10% of the time UV's?

I would just leave it on there. This way you'll only ever have to clean the front of the filter, rather than the front element itself and/or the filter.

The only time I'd remove the filter is if you've got point light sources or bright specular highlights in a scene, where a filter has the potential of creating more flare. The better the filter, the less likely you'll need to remove it but some times you just have to.

That's why it pays to get a good filter. Some argue that it degrades IQ and should never be used. This is more true with cheap filters but does have some merit. Every piece of glass you add causes some image degradation...

I have a completely different opinion. I use filters on everything I have. I don't want the glass scratched in any way, ever. I also carry insurance on my equipment and always buy extended warranties, so call me paranoid. I am not rich, so the $12k in equipment I have, I can't afford to replace if something happens to it.

With that said, I have bought b+w filters for everything recently. I have only done so, at the recomendation of a friend. I also bought a cheap Fotodiox slim filter, because I wanted to test the difference between a $20 filter and a $125 filter, on the same lens, with all the other variables the same as well. I couldn't tell a difference. I would say this, buy a $20 Fotodiox filter, take a photo, then take the filter off, and see if you can tell a difference. It's even better if this is a blind test, meaning you don't know which photo was taken with the filter. I bet you won't be able to tell.

People say stuff like this filter argument all the time, and it's so cheap and easy to test, but no one ever does. They all just go one way or another and then claim that's the best way. I have done the test, I have them both still here, if you want me to do another test.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2015041
i use the B+W MRC UV filters to protect all my lenses, work fine. i believe they are the 010 like you mentioned. but make sure to get the MRC multicoated version.

+1!

Maybe search around on the web for cheaper prices on the B+W filters.

Best regards,
Andy

Oh no, another filter thread. As many have said there are two polarised views (spot the pun).

Get the best multicoated ones you can, I use the Hoya HMC Pro 1 ones, I am sure the B+H ones are excellent also.

I do hear lots of people say filters degrade image quality but have never seen any evidence to that effect. From what I can see you may get some flare if you have a bright light like the disk of the sun in the shot, but the lens will probably flare before a good filter.

I got very curious about what the truth was and did some tests on sharpness and AF and on flare.

I don't use any UV filters as temperature/color correction is very simple in PP of digital images.

Andythaler wrote in post #2017070
+1!

Maybe search around on the web for cheaper prices on the B+W filters.

Best regards,
Andy

lol what?